recognize their bonds of solidarity and the imperative obligation of interesting themselves not only in their own peace, but in that of their neighbors.

Moreover, this article does not imply an obligation in the juristic sense of the word, but an obligation of a moral nature. It is in this sense that the clearcut adhesion of the American delegation, of the entire committee of examination to the proposal of the two French delegates was brought about. As for me, I rejoice that such an idea was formulated, for I consider it the necessary culmination of the task we have in hand. (Applause.)

Mr. Veljkovitch replies that the declarations and observations which have been made do not seem to him of a nature to attenuate the objections which he has presented. He feels that he must maintain his point of view and desires to set forth two main points in connection with the interpretation of Article 27. In the first place, he understands that by the expression "serious dispute" (conflit aigu) appearing in this article is meant the kind of serious dispute (conflit grave) referred to in Article 2 as capable of bringing on war. It is therefore only in absolutely exceptional cases, where peace is endangered, that the provisions of Article 27 may be applied.

In the second place, the intervention contemplated by this article may only be considered an act of good offices along the same lines as the intervention covered by Section 2. The explanations which have been made with respect to the various articles of this section, therefore, also apply to Article 27, as well as the general reservation which the delegation of Serbia felt it necessary to make regarding Section 2.

In this sense it has been specifically decided; that the good offices mentioned in Article 27 may be performed only with the extreme discretion and caution required when taking such a step; that these good offices may not be performed in such form and under such circumstances as might give them the appearance of intervention in the domestic affairs of a State; and, finally, that the refusal of a Power to follow the course pointed out to it may never be regarded by the other as an unfriendly act.

Subject to this interpretative declaration, the delegation of Serbia would be able to accept Article 27.

The President takes the floor and speaks as follows:

GENTLEMEN: Before we pass to a vote on his proposal, I ask the delegate of Serbia to be permitted to make a final appeal to him. I do so both in the name of the French delegation, which fathered Article 27, and as president of the Commission.

Since the opening of the Conference, we have succeeded on more than one occasion in joining hands and in reaching a unanimous point of view on questions with regard to which we appeared at first to be divided. It would be a notable achievement, the moral importance of which is, in my opinion, beyond expression, if we should succeed in showing the world that we are also unanimous as regards Article 27, which marks one of the essential points of the institution of arbitration.

When I examine the ideas which have caused Mr. VELJKOVITCH to make reservations with regard to Article 27, I can say that none of these ideas [57] can call forth, and none of them has called forth, any objection. All the speeches you have heard, all the declarations which have been made concerning the meaning and the scope of this article are at one in holding that it

should be adopted, and I desire expressly to confirm what has been said with such force by all the members of the committee of examination.

The disputes contemplated by Article 27 are indeed only those which might imperil peace. It is only with respect to such disputes that we regard as proper the friendly appeal of the signatory Powers to the parties at variance to have recourse to arbitration.

As for the apprehension expressed by the delegate of Serbia that a strong Power may make use of Article 27 for an attempt at unwarranted intervention in the affairs of a weaker Power, I shall merely say that, if a Power were to act in such a way, far from having the right to invoke Article 27, it would, in my opinion, be acting absolutely contrary to its purpose and spirit. As for us, if this article could have such a result, not only would we not have fathered it, but we would have energetically opposed it and refused it our vote, if it had been submitted by another delegation.

Mr. VELJKOVITCH has asked of what practical use is Article 27. I shall not repeat the reply that was made to him. It was shown that it is necessary to recall as regards arbitration the principles which appeared in the first article of the Convention, by which the signatory Powers undertook to use their best efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement of international disputes. These principles have been applied in determining the character of good offices which offers of mediation have, in our opinion. It was necessary and logical to say as much for the advice to have recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration and to state the duty of the Powers to make a sincere effort in this as in other forms of settlement for the maintenance of peace among the nations.

But it is not merely a question of the practical utility of this provision. Be assured, gentlemen, that what persuades us to defend it so energetically is that it seems to us to have a moral significance, the importance of which will be better and better understood as time goes on and after our labors are ended. Certain persons, gentlemen, who do not realize the power of an idea, would have us believe that what we have done here is a thing of little consequence. I am convinced, on the contrary, that when we have left this Conference, when we are no longer burdened with a legitimate concern for the special interests of each nation, which we have been forced to take into account, we ourselves will be better able to judge of the importance of our work, and the farther we proceed in the corridors of time, the more clearly will this importance stand revealed. The moral significance of the provisions of Article 27 lies wholly in the fact that a common duty as regards the maintenance of peace among men is recognized and asserted among nations. Do you believe it to be a thing of little consequence that in this Conference that is to say, not in a meeting of theorists and philosophers engaged in free discussion merely on their own. responsibility, but in an assembly in which the Governments of nearly all the civilized nations are represented the existence of this international duty has been proclaimed, and that the conception of this duty, from now on imbedded for all time in the conscience of the peoples of the world, will make itself felt hereafter in the acts of Governments and of nations? If my colleagues who have been opposed to this article will permit me to say so, I feel that their eyes are not turned in the direction in which they should look. They have seemed to be concerned with the conflicting interests of the great and the small Powers in this matter of arbitration. I shall repeat what has been said by Count NIGRA : there are neither great nor small Powers here; all are equal before the work

to be accomplished. But if this work is to be more advantageous to one than to another, would not the weaker nations surely profit by it the more? Yesterday in the committee of examination I said to our colleagues on the opposite side: Every time in the history of the world that a tribunal has been instituted and that a thoughtful and impartial decision has thus been enabled to rise above the clash of interests and passions, has it not been another guaranty to the weak against the abuses of force?

Inter

It will be the same, gentlemen, between nations as between men. national institutions, like this one, will be the guaranty of the weak against the strong. In the clashes of force, when it is a question of soldiers of flesh and steel, there are great and small, weak and strong. When it is a question of piling up swords on both sides of the scales, one side can be heavier and the other lighter. But when it is a question of weighing rights, there is no longer any inequality, and the rights of the smallest and weakest weigh just as much on the scales as the rights of the greatest.

This is the sentiment which has inspired our work, and in carrying it out we have had the weak especially in mind. May they understand our motives and respond to our hope by joining in the efforts we are making to govern the future of mankind in ever-increasing measure by the principles of law. (Prolonged applause.)

Mr. Veljkovitch replies that he is glad the observations which he presented regarding Article 27 have given the Commission the opportunity of hearing so eloquent an address. He hopes that the construction put upon this [58] provision by the PRESIDENT will be faithfully reproduced in the minutes of this meeting. It has made the principle laid down acceptable, and the delegation of Serbia is happy to be able to support it under these conditions. The President states that the Commission is in agreement as to Article 27 and asks whether any member has anything further to say on this article. Dr. Stancioff speaks as follows:

-

If it is admitted that it is a duty to recall the existence of the Permanent Court - it will always be a benefit the method to be followed in performing this duty should also be indicated. The word "recall seems to me too weak alongside of "duty."

And if it is not desired to involve diplomacy in this question, through what channel should steps be taken? Through the Bureau of Permanent Council mentioned in Article 28? This method of procedure might perhaps be too long, for the country which deems it its duty to bring arbitration to the attention of the Power that is in danger of conflict will be obliged first to address itself to the Permanent Council; the Council will have to call together five members. in order to deliberate, and during this interval the conflict may break out before the communication is transmitted.

That is why we must try to hit upon the most effectual and speedy method of tendering good offices, if we wish them to be of any service.

Mr. STANCIOFF is informed that official note is made of his observation, and Article 27 is adopted.

Article 28 is read:

A Permanent Administrative Council, composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory Powers accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will act as president, shall be instituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of the present act by at least nine Powers.

This Council will be charged with the establishment and organization of the International Bureau, which will be under its direction and control.

It will notify to the Powers the constitution of the Court and will provide for its installation.

It will settle its rules of procedure and all other necessary regulations.

It will decide all questions of administration which may arise with regard to the operations of the Court.

It will have entire control over the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the officials and employees of the Bureau.

It will fix the payments and salaries, and control the general expenditure.

At meetings duly summoned the presence of five members is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. The decisions are taken by a majority of votes.

The Council communicates to the signatory Powers without delay the regulations adopted by it. It addresses to them an annual report on the labors of the Court, the working of the administration, and the expenditure.

tions.

Chevalier Descamps says that this article has undergone several modifica

In the first place, in order to meet the wishes of his Excellency Count NIGRA, the number of Powers who must have ratified the Convention before the Permanent Council may be constituted was raised from six to nine (paragraph 1). In the second place, the committee complied in three respects with the desire expressed by his Excellency Count WELSERSHEIMB:

(1) In paragraph 1 the word "administrative" was inserted between "Permanent" and Council."

66

(2) In paragraph 5 the words "of administration" were inserted after the word "questions."

(3) Finally, the last paragraph was made to assume the following form: "The Council communicates to the signatory Powers without delay the regulations adopted by it. It addresses to them an annual report, etc."

It was, however, understood that this communication of the regulations does not have the effect of making these regulations contingent upon the approval of each Power.

His Excellency Count Welsersheimb states that he is satisfied with these modifications.

Article 28 is adopted.

Article 29 is read:

The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the signatory Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.

This article is adopted.

[59] The Commission passes to Chapter III (Arbitration procedure). Article 29 bis is read:

With a view to encouraging the development of arbitration, the signatory Powers have agreed on the following rules which shall be applicable to arbitration procedure, unless other rules have been agreed on by the parties.

This article is adopted.

Article 30 is read:

The Powers which have recourse to arbitration sign a special act (compromis), in

which are clearly defined the subject of the dispute and the extent of the arbitrators' powers. This act implies an engagement of the parties to submit in good faith to the arbitral award.

This article is adopted.

Article 31 is read:

The duties of arbitrator may be conferred on one arbitrator alone or on several arbitrators selected by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present act.

Failing the constitution of the tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:

Each party appoints two arbitrators, and these together choose an umpire.

If the votes are equally divided the choice of the umpire is entrusted to a third Power, selected by the parties by common accord.

If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.

This article is adopted, with the reservation of Dr. STANCIOFF'S observation, to wit, that the two arbitrators provided for in paragraph 3 may belong to the interested country.

Article 32 is read:

When the arbitrator is a sovereign or the chief of a State, the arbitration procedure is settled by him.

This article is adopted.

Article 33 is read:

The umpire is ex officio president of the tribunal.

When the tribunal does not include an umpire, it appoints its own president.

Mr. Papiniu desires to call the Commission's attention to a situation which it seems to him has not been foreseen. What would happen if an even number of arbitrators should be appointed and if, in the absence of an umpire, there should be a tie vote on the award?

The President says that the committee did not consider that the tribunal could be composed of an even number of arbitrators without the Powers seeing to it that an umpire was designated. If such a case should occur, it would be like stepping wantonly into a dispute, and such an hypothesis does not seem to be reasonable.

Chevalier Descamps says that in laying down the rules for the appointment and the prerogatives of the umpire, the difficulties pointed out by Mr. PAPINIU have been forestalled to a certain extent. The draft Convention cannot go farther than that.

If, however, it should happen that an arbitration tribunal found it impossible to reach a majority decision, and if it is not desired or is found impossible to appoint an umpire to break the deadlock, it will be for the Governments concerned to remedy the situation. Mr. DESCAMPS can see no other solution, and he cannot consider the possibility of giving any one of the arbitrators a preponderant vote. The committee is, however, disposed to examine any amendment that Mr. PAPINIU may wish to formulate in writing.

Mr. Papiniu replies that he did not feel called upon to formulate a positive proposal; he merely wished to point out a possibility which he thought ought